Unfortunately the article doesn't mention each Teacher's actual instructions pertaining to jhana. It makes me want to investigate every mentioned teacher except the last two of them:1) Leigh Brasington - because I've found his teaching is not in accordance with the Buddha's instruction. (I have addressed this in other thread)2) Shaila Catherine (never heard this name before) - because she mixes Buddhism with Vedic teaching.

Ayya Khema - I wonder how come her student (Leigh B) teaches that way. It makes her teaching interesting to be investigated.Pa Auk Sayadaw - Personally I agree with Vimalaramsi who says Burmese meditation style is not authentic (I've suspected the same thing) and what he says about Visuddhimagga is true. These make it interesting to find out the actual Sayadaw's instructions pertaining to jhanas.Ajahn Brahmavamso - Long ago I watched his interview video on youtube. In the video he said Ajahn Chah once called him 'stupid monk'. The reason may sound ridiculous but for me it makes his instructions quite worth further investigation.Thanissaro Bhikkhu - I found in a thread someone said Thanissaro has been known with the history of his translations tend to follow his inclination. I think that's true. I've found a weird translation example (a very important issue, I'd bring it up in other thread.) His term, 'self-reliance', makes his instruction needs further investigation. Nevertheless, he is right in relating dissociation with meditation in Visuddhimagga, which he calls it wrong-concentration. Remember that Buddhaghosa came from Vedic background. And vedic meditation is that of wrong-concentration, which Vimalaramsi calls it as 'hypnosis'.Bhante Vimalaramsi - Mainly uses Anapanasati Sutta and Satipathana sutta. So, where does his idea about jhana come from, it worth further investigation as well.Bhante Gunaratana - I don't think he is a western convert, since he should have been a Buddhist before he came to the US.

Anyway, western convert or not western convert, everyone should investigate his/her teacher. The important simple guideline is to find out whether the teacher's instruction leads to cessation/dispassion/disenchantment. If the instruction doesn't lead to cessation/dispassion/disenchantment, then there's no reason to follow the teacher.

ignobleone wrote:1) Leigh Brasington - because I've found his teaching is not in accordance with the Buddha's instruction. (I have addressed this in other thread)2) Shaila Catherine (never heard this name before) - because she mixes Buddhism with Vedic teaching.

I'd be interested to read your critique of Mr Brasingtons technique. I've listened to quite a bit of Ms Catherines teaching and never heard it mixed with Vedic teaching. Her teachings are primarily Sutta & Vsm based, re: Pa Auk.

These make it interesting to find out the actual Sayadaw's instructions pertaining to jhanas.

His instructions for entering Jhana are nimitta based entry to absorption RE: VSM. In Richard Shankmans book 'Samadhi', in the back section, there is an interview with him where he gives instructions. Also Shaila Catherine's books are based on Pa Auk's system, so you can get a more comprehensive look there.

Ajahn Brahmavamso - Long ago I watched his interview video on youtube. In the video he said Ajahn Chah once called him 'stupid monk'. The reason may sound ridiculous but for me it makes his instructions quite worth further investigation.

I think that ignobleone subscribes to the theory that Venerable Buddhaghossa (and others) were Brahmins, and inserted vedic teachings into the Commentaries and the Visuddhimagga.

As you say, Shaila Catherine has practised and studied intensively with Pa Auk Sayadaw. The book Wisdom Wide and Deep contains detailed explanations of Pa Auk Sayadaw's teachings, with copious references to Suttas and Commentaries.

mikenz66 wrote:I think that ignobleone subscribes to the theory that Venerable Buddhaghossa (and others) were Brahmins,

Who are the others?

Other ancient practitioners and commentators, presumably. I've no idea, since it's not my theory.

ignobleone wrote:

mikenz66 wrote:and inserted vedic teachings into the Commentaries and the Visuddhimagga.

Why don't you provide the otherwise proof?

ignobleone wrote:The burden of proof is not on me.

One thing for sure you should be aware of, Vimalaramsi is not alone. You have to disagree with Thanissaro as well, not to mention some other monks (regardless western or eastern) and lay Buddhists.

I don't see a problem with different teachers and practitioners (after carefully analysing the available texts and current teachings, and compared them against experience) having somewhat different interpretations. I do have a problem when they insist that they (or a small group) have the only possible interpretation.

Billymac29 wrote:The proof is on those who proclaim the vedic theory, not the nonvedic one... All vedic stories about budhaghosa are mere speculation... Those that try to use it as fact show their ignorance.

The only real purpose of this Vedic business is to try to dismiss Buddhaghosa without really doing the hard work of actually arguing against what he has said. It is a lazy and disreputable approach.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.